Is it the case that blue lines have always existed and tradition prevents change or that reasons exist in ice hockey rules to prevent fast breaks? Purists may consider this a debate topic - which it may well be.
I am just curious about the origin of blue lines and how they make the game better and why fast breaks are no good in hockey but the best part of basketball.
Not really a general question, but the purpose of the blue lines is not to prevent fast breaks, but to prevent someone from camping out in front of the goalie waiting for a long pass. That’s common for most sports where there is a goaltender; soccer has the offside rule for the same reason.
The blue lines are not just there to prevent fast breaks or camping in front of the goal. They mark each team’s “zone” and gaining possession of the other team’s zone is an essential part of hockey strategy. If you lose the zone, your players have to clear out and re-enter with the puck in front. This is extra important during power plays. Getting rid of the blue lines would turn it into a totally different game.
There are lots of breakaways in hockey despite the blue lines. They even abolished the red line a while ago to make them easier.
Eliminating the blue lines would break the sport. It’d reward goal camping.
Controlling the puck and keeping/ejecting it from the offensive zone is a huge part of hockey strategy. If you remove it you’d be turning the sport into something wholly different and, I suspect, ferociously boring.
Ok, I am persuaded. I lived in the West/South my entire life so never played ice hockey.
But over the last 3-5 years I’ve become a casual fan. HDTV makes it much better, btw.
Blue line trivia: Why is the red line painted in a “hash” while the blue lines are solid?
And of course, you can see how often a basketball player “camps” under the opposite goal.
FWIW, I think it would be a much better game. It was pretty good until the “blue line trap” became the standard defense.
A little history. The red line was brought in to encourage offense. Then it was taken out to encourage offense. Howso? Well, originally you couldn’t pass across the opposite blue line. Then the red line was brought in and two line passes were outlawed. Then they removed the red line, but now allowed passes from the center zone.
And, IMHO, soccer would be a much better game without the offside rule. You wouldn’t see any more 1-0 games, the sole goal coming on an Oscar (award for good acting). WAG: there would be less violence at soccer games if fans weren’t so frustrated by the lack of scoring.
So people without color T.V.'s could distinguish it from the blue lines (which was just about everyone back in the day).
.
That’s what I thought. If you sacrificed one of your five non-goalies to “camp” then the other side would have a permanent power play.
Soccer should use blue lines too. There is no reason to call offsides 5 yards away from the goal. Once you get that close it’s silly to worry about players being in front of the other team.
A soccer fan will probably jump in here and give an example where the offsides rule in soccer benefits the defense even when the ball is in that close (tho in general I much prefer how hockey (and the old NASL) handled the issue). I used to think soccer’s offsides rule was worthless BTW, but while undoubtedly flawed all other “solutions” are even worse.
It certainly benefits the defense to have offsides called 3 feet from the goal. But there are way too many people that close in to have to worry about staying in front of the last defender.
Ding ding ding!
(I hope you didn’t google the answer 
)
[moderating]
Thread moved to Game Room
[/moderating]
If you took out the offside rule it would become effectively impossible to defend against the rush. The issue isn’t camping. The issue is that offensive players without the puck would he able to drive the net at will, which would draw defenders down low along with them. This would give the player with the puck a free pass into the zone. The whole principle of defending against the rush is that the defense can stand up at the blue line and take away the puck carrier’s time and space. That requires defence in depth. A single unsupported defender will get walked often.
So, it would make the game more like basketball?
::Shudder::
Except that basketball players don’t do that anymore-if there’s a fast break they will run around aimlessly while the guy with the ball walks it up the court.
They eliminated the two line pass (but not offsides)…and that was just enough rule-bending to make fast breaks more frequent without camping. Had you watched the game over 5 years ago, you would have seen more whistles blown and a slower game because of the two-line pass infraction.